The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

I think it is important also to recognise the limitations of language in communicating ideas. When speaking to you I am trying to convert my inner thoughts and feelings to words, in the hope that you will be able to accurately translate them back again into a thought that resembled mine. Ultimately, something will always be lost in the translation, because thoughts are not words. (Alfred Korzybski - I think). Unfortunately most people become so used to doing this that they use language to filter their own thoughts from themselves. To fulfil your full potential you need to learn to let go of language and think without words. This is the path to true enlightenment.

As an interesting side topic I think that the ability to communicate without language is one of the primary functions of art. You can, for example, try to use language to communicate the nostalgia and angst of lost love in Paris, or you can sum it up with one guitar rift by Gary Moore.

I suppose a productive conversation of any sort, be it philosophical or not, needs to start with some inquiry. Each individual then posts in a sincere way their answer, their refutation, and/or other questions that may be relevant. Usually within one's writing they try to see both sides of the coin, or try to imagine other perspectives. However, what is necessary, for truth or some kind answer to be obtained as some kind of product, some kind of entity, then a basic general understanding of the rules of grammar must be used. If the writing is sloppy, it shows the reader two things: 1. It probably wasn't thought out. 2. The writer didn't care enough to be clear for audiences.

The question in my mind is, if the person isn't as clear as they can be, they certainly haven't grasped fundamental building blocks in education. Philosophy is a more esoteric discipline, as is astrophysics, and so forth. If there is from the very first sentence, an incompleteness, and continual incoherence throughout the post, then either the person has little to no education, or they have no regard for their audience. They simply want to dodge around statements and ideas. If they have no education (not necessarily schooling), then they won't know definitions, references, and generally will not follow up as a scholar. If they have no regard for their audience, then nothing productive will come of stubbornness, especially in a realm where some of the central tenets are: respect, curiosity, open-mindedness, and even the ability to explicate complex ideas they may have into a more public domain.

even the ability to explicate complex ideas they may have into a more public domain.

Some concrete ideas are complex, such as are many ideas from the sciences. 'Complex' and 'abstract' are not the same. Philosophy deals in abstractions from the concrete. An utterance might be rude or discourteous but will still be philosophical ( or mathematical) if it deals in abstract ideas.

Scott's advice regarding the use of the General Philosophy part of the Forum is an example of advice to omit the concrete, which is to be confined to the Philosophers' Lounge.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy

However the advice in 'How to Have Productive Philosophical Conversations' is not about content but about debating style.

even the ability to explicate complex ideas they may have into a more public domain.

Some concrete ideas are complex, such as are many ideas from the sciences. 'Complex' and 'abstract' are not the same. Philosophy deals in abstractions from the concrete. An utterance might be rude or discourteous but will still be philosophical ( or mathematical) if it deals in abstract ideas.

Scott's advice regarding the use of the General Philosophy part of the Forum is an example of advice to omit the concrete, which is to be confined to the Philosophers' Lounge.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy

However the advice in 'How to Have Productive Philosophical Conversations' is not about content but about debating style.

Here it may be noted that the subject of the XavierAlex's quoted sentence isn't "complex" or "ideas", but the ability--should one choose to do so.

But the thing is, that if you're already that self aware that you know how or to, or even have thought about what it is to actually converse, you're a bit more likely to succeed in the sense that you don't just tend to blindly adopt a view and take any question of it as a negative thing, because being aware that a thing such as a philosophical conversation exists means that you're a bit more self aware than most, because philosophy being used to learn and understand is a very basic and important idea of it. Choosing not to think and getting defensive to critiques is the same as just not existing as a human, since we as humans feel the need to think freely or always want to know more because we seem to be the only thing capable of it that is known to us so far.

You need to not go into the conversation as someone who knows more then the person you are speaking with. I find that if you both appear to be reaching a conclusion at the same time as the person you are speaking to, then you can get more revealing answers because you are equals . No one wants to think that someone knows more then them, so when going into philosophical discussions with people who might not be into that, you must start at the same point as them and take the journey together. At the same time I believe there are certain philosophical conversations that should not be discussed with people who are not of that mindset. They will understand through actions and the way you live your life, conversation will merely confuse and blur the lines for the listener.